Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

this is what is meant by objective moral values

To begin with, let's define what we mean by "objective moral values". Objective moral values are qualities like kindness or love which are morally good independent of the belief of human beings. For this reason, philosophers who affirm the existence of objective moral values sometimes speak about them as moral facts. A purported fact can either be true or false, but it is qualitatively different than an opinion, which is a matter of personal preference. So when we say that objective moral values exist, we mean that a statement like, "Murder is evil," is making a claim about some objective moral reality in precisely the same way that the statement, "There is a chair in my kitchen," is making a claim about objective physical reality. In contrast, a moral relativist claims that a statement like, "murder is evil," is a subjective claim about our (or our society's) preference. The statement, "murder is evil," expresses a subjective preference similar to the statements, "curry is tasty," or, "bluegrass is the best musical genre." If objective moral values exist, then statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," can be objectively true

Just for curiosity, for those who don't accept the conclusion of the argument, which of the 2 premises you consider more probably wrong than true?

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

this is what is meant by objective moral values

To begin with, let's define what we mean by "objective moral values". Objective moral values are qualities like kindness or love which are morally good independent of the belief of human beings. For this reason, philosophers who affirm the existence of objective moral values sometimes speak about them as moral facts. A purported fact can either be true or false, but it is qualitatively different than an opinion, which is a matter of personal preference. So when we say that objective moral values exist, we mean that a statement like, "Murder is evil," is making a claim about some objective moral reality in precisely the same way that the statement, "There is a chair in my kitchen," is making a claim about objective physical reality. In contrast, a moral relativist claims that a statement like, "murder is evil," is a subjective claim about our (or our society's) preference. The statement, "murder is evil," expresses a subjective preference similar to the statements, "curry is tasty," or, "bluegrass is the best musical genre." If objective moral values exist, then statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," can be objectively true

Just for curiosity, for those who don't accept the conclusion of the argument, which of the 2 premises you consider more probably wrong than true?

There is already a flaw in the argument on itself. Premise 1 and 2 being true does not necessarily means the conclusion is true.

To illustrate this:If someone doesn't own a Fort Knox, then he is not rich.Bill Gates is rich.Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

This argument isn't valid since according to premise 1, Bill Gates cannot be rich if he doesn't own a Fort Knox, but being rich doesn't mean he has a Fort Knox if he is rich. To put it simply, all people who don't own a Fort Knox are not rich, but that doesn't mean all rich people do have a Fort Knox.

Likewise, all logically possible realities wherein God doesn't exists also don't have objective moral values and duties in them, but that doesn't mean all locally possible realities wherein objective moral values and duties exists also have God existing in it.

Thus objective moral values and duties existing doesn't mean God exists according to premise one or two. So no one needs to address any premises, since the argument is invalid even if the premises are true.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

Nesslig20 wrote:To illustrate this:If someone doesn't own a Fort Knox, then he is not rich.Bill Gates is rich.Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

This argument isn't valid since according to premise 1, Bill Gates cannot be rich if he doesn't own a Fort Knox, but being rich doesn't mean he has a Fort Knox if he is rich. To put it simply, all people who don't own a Fort Knox are not rich, but that doesn't mean all rich people do have a Fort Knox.

Likewise, all logically possible realities wherein God doesn't exists also don't have objective moral values and duties in them, but that doesn't mean all locally possible realities wherein objective moral values and duties exists also have God existing in it.

Thus objective moral values and duties existing doesn't mean God exists according to premise one or two. So no one needs to address any premises, since the argument is invalid even if the premises are true.

the argument is valid, if your premises where true the conclusion Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.would be true.

I would simply argue that premise 1 is wrong, and I am sure it would be very easy to disprove premise 1

so I answered clearly an unambiguously, I would disagree with premise 1 ..................so now is your turn, answer clearly and unambiguously which premise do you think is more probably wrong

leroy wrote:so which of these 2 premises you find more probably wrong than true? just answer 1 or 2

I wont ever get a direct answer right?

You did get a direct answer Leroy. But if you want a moer direct answer: Your question is completely moronic.

Try to read this and use your brain:It'snotaboutprobability.The premisesareeithertrueorthey're not.

Or you could continue with theism for Leroy-minded people and we could continue to point out how its moronic.

no, for some reason you are unable to provide direct answers,

we both agree that none of these premises are 100% certainly true, I don't claim to be certain about any of the premises. .................but I would argue that these premises are more likely to be ture than wrong.

but lets make a deal, provide an argument for evolution, atheism (or anything with a conclusion that I would reject) where the conclusion follows from the premises, and I would tell you clearly and unambiguously which premise do I think is wrong. After I don that, you answer to my question clearly and unambiguously.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

this is what is meant by objective moral values

To begin with, let's define what we mean by "objective moral values". Objective moral values are qualities like kindness or love which are morally good independent of the belief of human beings. For this reason, philosophers who affirm the existence of objective moral values sometimes speak about them as moral facts. A purported fact can either be true or false, but it is qualitatively different than an opinion, which is a matter of personal preference. So when we say that objective moral values exist, we mean that a statement like, "Murder is evil," is making a claim about some objective moral reality in precisely the same way that the statement, "There is a chair in my kitchen," is making a claim about objective physical reality. In contrast, a moral relativist claims that a statement like, "murder is evil," is a subjective claim about our (or our society's) preference. The statement, "murder is evil," expresses a subjective preference similar to the statements, "curry is tasty," or, "bluegrass is the best musical genre." If objective moral values exist, then statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," can be objectively true

Just for curiosity, for those who don't accept the conclusion of the argument, which of the 2 premises you consider more probably wrong than true?

1. I do not accept the conclusion as the premises have yet to be demonstrated as true.

2. The premises are either true or not. This has nothing to do with probability - a subject on which you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding.

3. You can stop right now with your incessant demands that people must answer in a certain way or must limit their answer to options you provide. Just stop with that intellectually vapid practice.

Nesslig20 wrote:To illustrate this:If someone doesn't own a Fort Knox, then he is not rich.Bill Gates is rich.Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

This argument isn't valid since according to premise 1, Bill Gates cannot be rich if he doesn't own a Fort Knox, but being rich doesn't mean he has a Fort Knox if he is rich. To put it simply, all people who don't own a Fort Knox are not rich, but that doesn't mean all rich people do have a Fort Knox.

Likewise, all logically possible realities wherein God doesn't exists also don't have objective moral values and duties in them, but that doesn't mean all locally possible realities wherein objective moral values and duties exists also have God existing in it.

Thus objective moral values and duties existing doesn't mean God exists according to premise one or two. So no one needs to address any premises, since the argument is invalid even if the premises are true.

the argument is valid, if your premises where true the conclusion Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.would be true.I would simply argue that premise 1 is wrong, and I am sure it would be very easy to disprove premise 1

so I answered clearly an unambiguously, I would disagree with premise 1 ..................so now is your turn, answer clearly and unambiguously which premise do you think is more probably wrong

Premise one states that Bill cannot be rich if he doesn't own a For Knox, but that doesn't mean he owns a fort Knox if he is rich. Get it?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

Visaki wrote:P1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.P2: Objective moral values and duties do not exist.C: God does not exist.

Damn, I proved that God does not exist.

Since the connection between God and objective moral values and duties is a completely fabricated one I can do you one better.

P1. If God does not exist, then Santa Claus does not exist. (no Santa without Christmas - no Christmas without God)P2. Santa Claus does not exist.C. Therefore God does not exist.

Hey, leroy?!?! Which of these premises has the bluest colour?

You can of course only answer P1 or P2. If you answer anything else, I will accuse you of not providing a clear answer.After all, you taught me that.

Unfortunately, you two are affirming the consequent. Premise one states that Santa claus cannot exists if God doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that if santa claus does notexists, god doesn't exists.

I gave the example of the premise that states "If someone doesn't own a Forth Knox, he/she isn't rich" which basically means that ALL those who do not own a Forth Knox are not rich, but that doesn't mean that all those that are not rich, owns a Fort Knox. All humans are mammals but not all mammals are humans is another one.

To fix the problem:P1. If God does not exist, then Santa Claus does exist. P2. Santa clause does not exist. C. Therefore God does not exist.

And also, Leroy, just realize I made a mistake. Leroy is not committing "affirming the consequent" fallacy. You use "modus Tollens" or denying the consequent, which is logically valid.

So yes, your argument is valid, but is it sound? In order to be sound you have to demonstrate the premises so start demonstrating the premises.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

Last edited by Nesslig20 on Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

this is what is meant by objective moral values

To begin with, let's define what we mean by "objective moral values". Objective moral values are qualities like kindness or love which are morally good independent of the belief of human beings. For this reason, philosophers who affirm the existence of objective moral values sometimes speak about them as moral facts. A purported fact can either be true or false, but it is qualitatively different than an opinion, which is a matter of personal preference. So when we say that objective moral values exist, we mean that a statement like, "Murder is evil," is making a claim about some objective moral reality in precisely the same way that the statement, "There is a chair in my kitchen," is making a claim about objective physical reality. In contrast, a moral relativist claims that a statement like, "murder is evil," is a subjective claim about our (or our society's) preference. The statement, "murder is evil," expresses a subjective preference similar to the statements, "curry is tasty," or, "bluegrass is the best musical genre." If objective moral values exist, then statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," can be objectively true

Just for curiosity, for those who don't accept the conclusion of the argument, which of the 2 premises you consider more probably wrong than true?

Premise one is already false. While it's true that there are no objective morals, they're all subjective to individuals and tempered by family and cultures, this has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a god.

Premise two is already false as mentioned.

Therefore conclusion cannot be logically reached.

Objective moral values are qualities like kindness or love which are morally good independent of the belief of human beings.

Are they always objectively good? If someone believe that they're being kind ending the life of a crippled person is it truly kind to the crippled person to end their life if they don't want it ended? If a teacher falls in love with a 13 year old student, is that love objectively good?

"So when we say that objective moral values exist, we mean that a statement like, "Murder is evil," is making a claim about some objective moral reality in precisely the same way that the statement, "There is a chair in my kitchen," is making a claim about objective physical reality."

This really is nothing more than trying to isolate a specific example of killing another human being then claiming it objective when the word "murder" is subjective itself. If you're father, to use an hypothetical example, was wrongly convicted of a murder you know he didn't commit (say you two were on vacation together at the time in a completely different state) would you not think the state executing him was murdering an innocent man? "Murder is evil" is subjective to the perspective of the person saying it and how they personally define "murder".

If objective moral values exist, then statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," can be objectively true

However the fact that the statement "the Holocaust was evil" is not seen as true by everyone (there are people that think it was a good thing as well as those that deny it ever happened) helps demonstrate the subjectivity of morality.

Steelmage99 wrote:1. I do not accept the conclusion as the premises have yet to be demonstrated as true..

so what, ? affirming that the conclusion is worng implies that you think that at least one of the premises is wrong, so which premise is it?

2. The premises are either true or not. This has nothing to do with probability - a subject on which you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding.

no one is talking about probability, when I say that the premises are more probably true than wrong I simply mean that even though I have no absolute proof, I bellive that there are good reasons to accept those premises..

3. You can stop right now with your incessant demands that people must answer in a certain way or must limit their answer to options you provide. Just stop with that intellectually vapid practice.

I am asking a valid question, at any point you can provide valid argument with the conclusion Therefore God does not exist, and I would tell you which premise I think is wrong